Case law

Charles HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Defendant-Appellee

967 F.2d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 16, 1992

The district court found that Hughes had failed to present evidence indicating Hughes was qualified for the AHHO position, and he therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. … The EEO investigated the “preferential training” issue, and the decision of the Office of General Counsel of the VA clearly refers to Hughes’s allegations of “preferential training.”

Wright v. Califano

603 F.2d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 23, 1979

Any such claim necessarily required a waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. … Yamasaki, supra, establishes the propriety of using Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., as a vehicle for disposing of more than one case in a single proceeding.

Sarah E. Frey, Kevin Enright, and Protect Our Woods, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Christie Whitman, Administrator, and Viacom, Inc.

270 F.3d 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2001

the parties to argue the jurisdictional issue, or provide the plaintiff with the opportunity to discover the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction.” … But we are concerned that this reading ignores the lack of a qualifier on the phrase “remedial action.” The statute does not say “a remedial action,” or “a stage of a remedial plan.”

Goldhamer v. Nagode

621 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2010

As a general rule, the fact that a person was previously prosecuted for violating a law is insufficient by itself to establish that person’s standing to request injunctive relief. See Steel Co. v. … Judge Aspen granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs as to liabil- ity and held that the defendant police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clear that they had arrested the plaintiffs without

Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2024

LaVoie was entitled to qualified immunity. This was so, the court said, because in light of Snipes, Brown had no clearly established right to an anesthetic. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person

Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2024

LaVoie was entitled to qualified immunity. This was so, the court said, because in light of Snipes, Brown had no clearly established right to an anesthetic. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person

Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2024

LaVoie was entitled to qualified immunity. This was so, the court said, because in light of Snipes, Brown had no clearly established right to an anesthetic. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person

United States v. Darius Howard

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2013

See Rabin, — F.3d at —, 2013 WL 3455689 at *4 (affirming qualified immunity for officers who handcuffed subject in Terry stop to investigate  whether  his  possession  of  firearm  was  lawful); Baird v.  … Berthiaume,  636  F.3d  452,  459–60  (8th  Cir.  2011)  (denying qualified  immunity  for  the  use  of  handcuffs  during  a  Terry stop); Bowden v. Town of Speedway, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1101 (S.D. 

In the Matter of Wheat Rail Freight Rate Antitrust Litigation. Appeals of Little Crow Milling Co., Inc., Midstate Mills Inc., Dca Food Industries Inc., General Mills, Inc., and the Pillsbury Company

759 F.2d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 1985

In considering whether to imply immunity, a panel of this court discussed the interplay between the antitrust laws and regulation. 23 It is well-established ... that regulated industries are not per se exempt from the Sherman … In holding AT & T's conduct to be not impliedly immune, this court established that in order to imply antitrust immunity for a regulated industry, a court must find either: 25 (1) [that] the activities that are the subject

Anthony Wheeler v. Paul Talbot

695 F. App'x 151 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2017

Ct.  548  (2017)  (describing  qualified-­‐‑immunity  doctrine).   … Indeed,  even  though  Anglin  and  Johnson   invoke  the  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity,  Wheeler  did  not  mention  it  in  his  opening   brief  and  did  not  file  a  reply  brief.  

Greenawalt, Kristin v. IN Dept Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2005

enforce had not been clearly established in the case law when she brought the suit. … established when this suit was filed.

Milazzo v. O'Connell

151 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1998

immunity under Count II. … Consequently the court refused to hold that defendants had qualified immunity under Count II of the original complaint. We affirmed. 108 F.3d 129 .

Monte K. Sieberns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

125 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 11, 1997

Corp., 101 F.3d 519, 525 (7th Cir.1996) (“Recovery under the ADA also requires a plaintiff to establish she is a qualified individual with a disability.”). … That clearly was beyond a reasonable accommodation.

Omosegbon v. Wells

335 F.3d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2003

The Indiana legislature responded with the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3, which "established extensive immunity provisions which shield governmental units from [tort] liability...." Benton v. … In short, Dele's attempt to establish a liberty interest fails.

Tinkoff v. United States

211 F.2d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1954

In other words, the government has expressly reserved its traditional immunity from claims of this nature. … Clearly the affidavit filed by plaintiff was not sufficient under the decision of this court in Tucker v. Kerner, 7 Cir., 186 F.2d 79 . Plaintiff’s request for transfer was properly denied.

Victims of the Hungarian Holoc v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt

777 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2015

But here defendants need not rely on a special immunity defense found in the FSIA. … Plaintiffs’ own expert witness on Hungarian law agreed with the defendants’ expert that prior to 2012, “Hungary [was] a well-established European state, with a well func- tioning legal system that operates under established

United States v. Nick Senak

477 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 1973

The court recognized an exception to immunity where the officials’ acts are clearly outside the scope of the officials’ jurisdiction. Id. … If the indictment is sufficient in other respects, the Government should be given the opportunity to try to establish that Senak acted “under color of . . . law.”.

Jerald Davis v. Union National Bank and William Owens, Individually

46 F.3d 24 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

The District Court dismissed the claim against Owens on grounds of qualified immunity, and this court affirmed. The District Court then granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment, and Davis appealed. … While the Supreme Court has not established a test for finding state action in a malicious prosecution case, this court has. See Gramenos v.

Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

667 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2011

The first concerns the sovereign immunity of the United States. … And all sides agree that if invasive carp were to achieve a sustainable population in the Great Lakes, the environmental and economic impact would qualify as an unreasonable interference with a public right.

Flying J Incorporated v. Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2010

The Court’s comment was made in a footnote during its discussion of whether the New York pricing scheme qualified for state actor immunity. … Because we conclude that the Act is not preempted, we need not consider whether the provision would qualify for state action immunity under Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943).